@fititnt, I mean this with all politeness as I say this: I don’t know if English is your native language, but it is mine. Perhaps you are using translation software, in which case, I strongly recommend you find something more effective. I find nearly all of the several (dozen?) of your (usually quite lengthy) posts here to be almost impossible to parse as I read them as a native English speaker, and I am quite well-educated (with a double-major in Linguistics from the University of California) and am multilingual across five languages (to some degree). I usually get your tone coming across loud and clear, more often than not this seems inflammatory or even hostile and/or overtly colored with needless complexity.
Perhaps you might aim for more succinct, simply-worded missives? Thank you for this consideration.
Postscript: I do know what argument ad hominem is (Latin for a particular kind of argument against the person, not the topic. And I don’t think this is what @woodpeck did above).
I assume (and hope!) this is a top priority for the regular operation of the DWG. Isn’t it?
In the particular case I refer in my post above, the DWG would have tried to obtain directly from the reported mapper a statement on which sources were used maybe? And if there was no answer in a reasonable time, then take active measures to prevent further possible copyright infringement on the basis of reasonable suspicion. OSM is a community project; a mapper who does not provide their sources is already a burden on the community.
I didn’t deal with that particular ticket, but I’ve checked and that is literally a direct quote from the text of the ticket that Mario logged.
We have had odder requests. This isn’t one of those cases, but we get lots of complaints where someone has seen “(c) OpenStreetMap Contributors” on a map on a web page and decides to complain to us about that web page, often from someone who doesn’t understand how phone apps, the internet, or computers in general work. Where there’s some information to go on we try and help where we can (usually by suggesting who the complainant should contact) but quite often there is literally nothing we can do.
Can we eventually have a public, official, serious reply from Data
Working Group which don’t use argumentum ad hominem as part of the
Assuming for a moment that you mistakenly used the term “ad hominem” to
mean “having to do with a person”:
To get an answer that does not have anything to do with a person, you
need to ask a question that does not have anything to do with a person.
The public, official, serious reply to the question “can you use
copyrighted sources to contribute to OSM” is “no”. This is the only
“standard” there is, and the DWG is happy to re-iterate that to anyone
asking. As I only recently in a Panama-related discussion, here: Rutas de MetroBus en Panama - #46 by woodpeck.
In everyday DWG work, a case cannot be separated from the history of
both the person reporting someone and the person whose behaviour is
reported. The DWG will always look at (or remember) potential past
interactions and they will inform how a case is dealt with. A “repeat
offender” will be blocked more quickly than someone who makes a mistake
for the first time. A year-long feud between two mappers who accuse each
other of wrongdoing might receive less attention than a report by
someone who has a history of making factual and well-researched cases,
and so on.
So, “how many standards does the DWG use”? - There are rules that
everyone is expected to adhere to. But how exactly these will be applied
is a case-by-case decision. There are as many “standards” as there are
In my interactions with the DWG over the years, I’ve always found them to be professional and courteous, which is impressive considering the amount of stupid that they have to deal with on a daily basis. While I’m not familiar with the particular case here, it’s clear that you tend to communicate in a confrontational and accusing manner, and that is the main reason why people aren’t interested in hearing what you have to say.
The discussion here has striking parallels with othercases where someone just couldn’t get along with other mappers. Your name seems to consistently come up in the context of “problems in the LATAM mapping community”, and not in a good way. Why is that?
OpenStreetMap isn’t for everyone, and perhaps you should consider whether this project is a good fit for you.
so, as long as it’s only me reporting local people copying from whatever sources, these reports are going to be ignored.
this, combined with the local Latin American custom not to criticize under any circumstances, does mean that @BigKev97, @Alvarado2510, @joserrg12 and whoever likes to do so, may copy from whatever sources they please, as long as they stay within their non-criticizing community.
makes sense, thank you for your reading key @ZeLonewolf. it also matches why @joserrg12 was blocked when he transgressed the Latin American boundaries, and how @BigKev97 is now mapping undisturbed within the boundaries of Puerto Rico.
so dear @Alvarado2510, go ahead, Panama is all yours to mess up with!
I do not think there is any value in leaving this thread open. I believe all main participants have shared their points, and at this juncture I do not believe any mutually satisfactory conclusion will be reached by the parties to this conversation. I am weary of the rising tension and therefore am closing this topic on 1/20.